Spoken like a tort reformer.

How do we "suffer" as tax payers? How do we "suffer" as casino patrons?

Can you back up your statement with facts and figures? Let's see.

And may I point out that filing a civil lawsuit is a right guaranteed by the 7th amendment to our constitution.


AB

And some dry white toast please.

my comments in bold

Looks more like there is a criminal lawsuit against the gambler, which has turned a little bit ugly for Harrah's. The guy is making these allegations as part of his criminal defense. Guess maybe Harrah's should have thought twice about trying to make the guy pay the last $15 million of his $112 million in gambling loses for 07 and accepted what they'd gotten.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009...gh-rollers-in/ Don't see any stories on this since July.

...appearing 5 days a week in the Dealertainer pit at Imperial Palace.

That was the opinion of another lawyer. I just read the Statute and it doesn't say anything about "illegal gambling".

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vpw...e=mcl-600-2939

Because frivilous lawsuits can be a drain on resources including the legal system and drive up other costs which ultimately get passed on to taxpayers and patrons.

While it is your Right to File, it doesn't mean it is right to file.

No, however I am a former columnist wherein the subject was constitutional law and civil liberties.


False. Court costs are paid by the litigants. Further, there is already legislation in place, wherein plaintiffs that are found to be frivolous are FINED, and attorneys SANCTIONED.


Prove it. The fact is legal fees are an INSIGNIFICANT portion of total operating costs.


No it's not obvious - it's pure conjecture on your part. You have no facts nor figures to back up anything you are saying.

Here are some facts:

1) Tort cases make up LESS than 10% of all court cases. Our courts are not even remotely "clogged" with torts. The majority of court cases are FAMILY law (i.e. divorce) and CRIMINAL. Taxpayers DO pay for ALL of the court costs related to criminal law, and often get stuck with the bill for the defendant's attorney as well. This is NOT true for torts.

2) As stated, there are already protections in place to punish frivolous filers.

3) Frivolous suits NEVER go to trial - that is the purpose of the pre-trial meetings and hearings.

If an attorney went after me personally, on frivolous grounds, I would then have grounds to sue him directly for damages.

But that would never happen. Because a pennyless plaintiff would never be able to AFFORD an attorney, and no attorney would take on a frivolous case on contingency. PERIOD. EVER. The few frivolous cases that you rarely hear about come about with PLAINTIFFS with a lot of time and money to WASTE hiring mediocre attorneys on an hourly basis. No pennyless plaintiff could afford such a luxury.

I will now direct you to further discussion on that and other related points:

http://news.lawreader.com/?p=339



CLIFFS: Tort reformers are parroting neocons with no knowledge or understanding of our legal system and framework.


AB

This statement is not true.

See my above post.

whatever we think about this case (offhand i tend to agree it's bull)
"player protection" programs, mostly for video poker and slots, are
starting to pop up fo this reason. they need to cover their asses
in case people start showing up, saying machines are somehow
manipulated to dupe people into staying. that's machines, mind you.
can't see table games being a problem, as noone's strapped in,
supposedly entranced by all the pretty colors, sounds, switches, seats etc

it's clear the industry fears a future where they might be held liable, as the technology and the environment of the slot parlors get more and more advanced. they can't let a precedent take place. i think there's some lawsuits pending in canada and/or Australia regarding slot "addicts".

but unlike tobacco or alcohol, many state governments have a direct stake
in gaming, so i don't see things going against them.

why doesn't he just go spew off at the HS poker tables like all good
blackjack degens are supposed to?

no u

exactly. people just have no class these days.

State governments have a fairly direct stake in alcohol and tobacco as well.

true, taxes. but take Rhode Island for instance. Without their huge cut from Twin Rivers, or whatever it's called now, they'd be so much more screwed and miserably off than they already are.

Court Costs are often waived and how they are handled can vary by State. If all Court Costs were covered by litigants then there wouldn't be any line item in the State Budget for our Legal System. And the costs that ARE paid by litigants ARE ultimately passed on to consumers.

Plus you state that "Frivolous lawsuits never go to trial" That is sort of a silly statement. Never say "never". And you dismiss the time, effort and money to get them dismissed prior to trial. Proving that something is Frivolous is difficult. Even if it is borderline, it may get a hearing or even sneak into a full Trial. I'd have called suing McDonalds for serving coffee that was too hot frivolous - however that went to trial and resulted in a large award to the plaintiff. Sanctions and fines are rare. And the chances are slim that the Casino can get reimbursed for defending themself from a guy who already lost all of his money.

Also, you state as a fact that Casino defense fees are immaterial. Do you have any factual basis for this statement?

You state that an attorney would never take a Frivolous case. In the case we are discussing it appears that some attorney took the case of this plaintiff.

These "Hidden" costs of doing business are passed on to all consumers.

In the case of medical malpractice I have seen estimates that up to 25% of private practice cost goes to insurance and other malpractice coverages. I do not think that Doctors should get a free pass, but IMO Tort Reform is long overdue and needs to be addressed BEFORE Healthcare Reform currently being rammed thru the House and Senate.

well at the country club that i use to play at, had a similar incident to what you just said^^^. this middle aged prick spent the entire afternoon drinking at the bar and ended up running someone over and ended up getting hurt himself with the golf cart.

he later sued the club saying that the bartender kept on serving him drinks even though the bartender knew that the chance of him playing golf afterward would be pretty high (i mean, why else would someone be at the country club at 11am on a saturday?) so the guy accused that the country club kept serving him drinks for money and also he stated that an establishment that lets you drive golf carts without checking the alcohol consumption of each player is irresponsible... blah blah.

and guess what?

he won.

the country club settled it for $2million (nice check). and after a hurricane wilma went through in florida 4yrs ago and destroyed pretty much everything on the course, my country club had to settle for a cheaper renovation. and after the hurricane, the quality of the course went down significantly (aesthetically as well) and my father and i (along with many others) left the club that yr.

Ooooh, I'm not quite so sure they are
yawning. These suits affect the entire industry potentially. And it only takes one successful suit to potentially make law. Believe me, they are NOT yawning.

And contrary to what some of you may believe, plaintiff attorneys generally just don't accept any old case. Generally, all costs are borne by the attorney and later recovered only if there is a recovery. Generally speaking, they take on cases that they feel have a good chance of success - whether by settlement or verdict.

If one of these suits succeeded in a lower court, I bet you'd see the industry stand at attention and participate in the appeals via "friend of the court" type motions.

This is incorrect. Not all States have such statutes and your mileage may vary. Frivolous is a pretty high standard. What you feel is "frivolous" may in fact have a cogent legal argument behind it. Whether it succeeds or not is not the basis for coloring an action "frivolous". More often than not, a party will drop a suit in return for the other party to forgo seeking costs.

It does present a strain because lawyers are not cheap. Do you know how much is costs to defend the average lawsuit? For instance, a birth injury lawsuit against a ob/gyn can run $500k to defend. Routine MVA with bodily injury? $50k. Those costs are not borne by the ob/gyn or the driver for instance. They are passed along to YOU ultimately. OB/GYN insurance rates go up, he raises his costs or more frequently, he stops delivering babies. Yeah, that benefits the public.

The above is deceptive. Different case types have different tracks thru various courts. In many States and jurisdictions, the courts are indeed clogged with tort cases - many cases taking years to reach resolution. And as I stated above, there is no "free lunch" for us just because the litigants bear the immediate costs of the lawsuit.

And as I've already pointed out, these protections are impotent.

To have a suit declared by a judge "frivolous" is a rare occurrence. More often than not, judges do not want to throw suits out because they want plaintiff's to have their day in front of a jury. If they let a case go to verdict, there is less chance for appeal. A judge's decision to throw a case out is subject to appeal and no judge likes to be overturned on appeal. Judges routinely bend over backwards to allow cases to go forward. You have your "facts" wrong.

Easier said than done. Most lawsuit are carefully crafted to state a cause of action on legal grounds. Proving those legal allegations are another thing, but it's not as simple as saying "I'll get it thrown out".

This is also untrue. Many attorneys will take on cases they think have settlement value. And don't even get me started about med mal cases. Most juries cannot even understand the issues of medicine and plaintiff attorneys know it and exploit it and use sympathy, hired assasin experts to sway juries into big verdicts. It happens. Everyday. And you're wrong. Perhaps the subject of the OP is not a good yard stick to have this discussion, but sir you are either ignoring or unacquainted with the world of torts.


And before you question my credentials to make the above statements, I have been an insurance claims professional for over 20 years. I have personally handled or consulted on more than 10,000 lawsuits in my career, sheparding many to settlement and many more to verdict. I have reviewed the complaints, discovery and paid the legal bills. I have requested the settlement checks. I have seen it, for 20 years, from soup to nuts, in every jurisdiction in the US. And your conclusions sir, are WRONG.

I am guesing that AlienBoy is likely using the legal definition of the term "frivolous". When he states that a frivolous case "never" goes to trial, he is technically correct. If it was "frivolous" it wouldn't go to trial because for it to be "frivolous" it would have to be declared "frivolous" and therefore would not have gone to trial. However it is clear that the rest of us are using a laymans definition of the term and therfore silly to state that a frivolous suit would never go to trial or result in a judgement against the defendant.

I hate to cherry pick through your post but I had to say I expected to see someone bring up the McDonald's hot coffee thing. Most people don't really know the facts and just assume "lady spilled coffee in her lap and sued", when there was really much more to it.

They knew the coffee was served much hotter than other establishments. It was not even close to the first time it happened. McDonald's had plenty of opportunity to settle this case before trial for much less money.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

This is really a terrible example of a lawsuit being "frivolous."

I do concede that medical malpractice lawsuits probably could be taken a look at, but I admittedly don't have much knowledge in that area.

She sued McDonalds for Hot Coffee.

Hot Coffee.

Still very frivolous in my book, even after reading the links.

She bought Hot Coffee and spilled it in her lap and sued McDonalds saying that Hot Coffee is unreasonably dangerous.

Hot Coffee.

She was awarded $2.7 Million (later reduced to $480K) because she was a klutz and spilled Hot Coffee in her lap.

Someone needs to serve her and that Jury a nice Hot cup of Personal Responsibility

Wrong forum for political discussion. 2+2 has a separate forum called... Politics.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41/politics/